Comparative productivity, profitability and energy use in Organic,
LEISA and Conventional rice production in the Philippines

T C Mendoza

Paper presented during the 14th IFOAM Organic World Congress
held at Victoria, Canada on August 21-24, 2002

Abstract

The Organic method of rice
production was more productive than LEISA (low external input sustainable agriculture) and
conventional methods. Only 52 USD were spent and 277 Mcal of energy used in producing 1
tonne of paddy rice through the organic method while 63 USD were spent and 501 Mcal of
energy were used in LEISA.Three times more
energy (837 Mcal) and 79 USD were spent in producing 1 tonne of rice in the conventional
method.Growing rice the organic method was 4
times more energy efficient than the conventional.

method.

The agrochemical input
(fertilizer/pesticides) accounted for 61% of the fossil fuel based energy inputs and 84%
of the cash cost of production in the conventional system.Organic rice farmers earn 7 dollars per 1 dollar cash expense while only 2 dollars
in conventional and 5 dollars in LEISA.

The findings in this case study
have shown that the organic method of production is a cost effective (and energy
efficient) means of solving the recurring credit problems of capital-scarce rice farmers
in the Philippines.This is especially relevant considering the
unpredictable rain and typhoon occurrence (18 to 20 storms per year) in practically all
rice producing areas except Mindanao. The Government extension program should equally
promote the organic method of rice production.

Productivity
and profitability continue to be the two most important indicators in assessing the
success or failure of crop production. But high levels of productivity (though not
necessarily profitable) have been and continue to be achieved through the heavy use of
energy-based cultural inputs (Jones 1989; Hall et al 1992; Pimentel et al 1994) together
with fertilizer-responsive high-yielding crop varieties (Jensen 1978), farm mechanization
which facilitates timeliness of field operations, and irrigation which relieves the crop
from any yield-depressing effect of water deficit during the sensitive growth stage.

All over the world, there has been a growing realization of the
increasing inefficiencies of agricultural production (Pimentel et al 1983; 1980; Soriano
1982; Gowdy et al 1987; Mendoza 1991; Giampietro 1994; Singh et al 1997). From
the time of Pimentels 1983 study, which pioneered energy analysis in agriculture,
the direction, attention and interest has been to reduce energy use in production.

Fossil fuel oil reserves continue to decline and extraction and
exploration have become more difficult and expensive.This has propelled fossil fuel price increases, which in turn has led to higher
food prices.This pattern of thinking,
however, is not shared by all.Bony (1993),
for instance, concluded that since 1977, direct energy use for wheat production in France has been decreasing.Considerable
savings of energy are realized since more powerful tractors (combining 2 or 3 field
operations simultaneously) are being used.The
results of Bony's (1993) study seem to contradict those obtained by Pimentel et al (1983).While energy intensity increased by 28.3% between
1944 (4.6 GJ t-1) and 1975 (5.9 GJ t-1), the energy use did not
increase since then.Energy use in the
manufacture of nitrogen, which accounts for a high proportion of the total energy use, has
decreased (Mudahar and Hignett 1985).This
decrease in the energy coefficient for nitrogenous fertilizer, as suggested by some
authors, had in turn decreased the energy intensity of maize production between 1975 and
1983 in USA (Uhlin 1998; Cleveland 1995; Balwindy and Fluck 1993; Panesar
and Fluck 1993).

There are two general
ways of pursuing an energy-conserving or energy-reducing agricultural production systems.The first involves improvement in the conventional
practices by introducing or adopting more efficient and energy-saving technologies and
practices (Reinjntjes et al 1992).The second requires fundamental changes, a major
shift or transformation in whole systems, values, and beliefs, of not only the farmers but
also the society at large.This has been
elucidated by various authors (Steiner 1924; Henning et al 1991; Rigby and Caceres 2001; Ohlander et al 1999, Pretty 1996 ).

In the Philippines, it appears that some rice farmers are practicing these two
unique ways.Rice is the staple food of about
80% of the population.Due to the increasing
prices of agrochemical inputs relative to stagnant rice prices, farmers are forced to cut
costs.As agrochemicals (fertilizer and
pesticides) comprise the major cash cost of production, the practice is to reduce the use
of these inputs.The Philippine government
through the Department of Agriculture has also been launching Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) whose implementation has reduced considerably the use of pesticides by rice farmers.In the current terminology, their approach to rice
production can be called "Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture" (LEISA)
(Reinjntjes et al 1992).But there have been a number of rice farmers who
have adopted more fundamental changes in their system of rice farming.They no longer apply chemical fertilizer and
pesticides.Instead, they practice rice straw
recycling, use green manure crops (Azolla, Sesbania); and raise livestock (ducks, swine,
cattle or carabao) to produce on-farm the manure which they apply in their farm as fresh
manure or prepared into compost.Their system
of rice farming can be aptly called organic farming (USDA 1980; Henning et al 1991; Lampkin and Measures 1999).

In the Philippines, the historical energy use in rice production had not been done
but energy related studies had been done separately (Nguyen van Nguu 1976; Mendoza 1991;
Soriano 1982).Energy use in conventional rice
farming is obviously higher compared with that in the traditional rice production.As soils have become acidic, fertilizer use
efficiency has declined. This had resulted in an increased use of chemical fertilizer
inputs (6 bags of fertilizer per ha in the 1970s to 8-10 bags of fertilizers in the
1990s).Farmers now use hand tractors instead of carabaos for
land preparation. As soil organic matter declined, tillage has become more difficult,
which increased the man-hours to fully prepare the field for planting. The profitability
of rice farming has considerably declined.

Three farming systems
(Organic, LEISA, and Conventional farming) were studied.In addition to productivity and profitability analysis, an energy analysis
(efficiency and intensity) was included.Specifically,thiscase
studywas conductedto:

compare the 3 farm
systems as to their productivity, profitability and energy use (efficiency and intensity)

be able to draw
insights and lessons from the 3 systems that could guide research and extension in
promoting a more ecology-sustainable rice production system in the country.

Methodology

Selection and Characterization of Case
Study Sites

In a rice farming community, the research sites were selected
based on the following criteria: presence of farmer practitioners of Organic Agriculture
(OA), Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA) and Conventional Agriculture
(CF).As to the case farms, the following
criteria were used:

prospective farmer-partners with a farm holding of at least one
half hectare and that had been practicing the specific farming approach for the past 3
years,

the farms were located within the same village, and

the farmers were willing to share the details of their farming
practice.

Based on the above criteria, two research sites were selected.
The first case study was done at Infanta, Quezon (Mendoza et al. 2001) while the second
was done at Baco, Oriental Mindoro (Mendoza 2002)

The first case study site was in the village of Tudturan, in
the town of Infanta, Quezon.Infanta is one of 13 municipalities of the
first district of Quezonprovince.Most of Infanta has rugged to mountainous terrain
(59%) while the low-lying areas have level to gentle slopes (41%).The case study was done in the low-lying area, as
these are the flat and irrigated areas .As
such, they are highly suitable to rice production.The
soil in the study area originated from alluvial deposits washed lower from the adjoining
uplands.The textural classification is silt
loam.The site has no distinct dry season
(less 200 mm months-1) but has a very pronounced maximum rainy period from
November to January in any given year.

The case study was conducted in a two (2) year period from 1998
to 2000.There were four cropping seasons (2
wet and 2 dry) .Field visits depended on the
activities on the farm, i.e. land preparation, planting, weeding/replanting,
harvesting/threshing, and gathering materials for composting.To collect data, the following instruments and
methods were used: questionnaires, historical accounts, focus observation, individual
interview, use of secondary data, record keeping.

Agronomic data such as yield per ha were monitored every after
harvest.The area of the farm was noted and
the yields were reported on a per ha basis.Important
plant data such as filled grain per panicle, unfilled grain per panicle and weight of
1,000 grains (g) were also obtained in the 3 farms.

The second case study was done in the village of Mayabig, town of Baco, Oriental Mindoro.Oriental Mindoro is one of the 2 provinces of the island of Mindoro (the other being Mindoro Occidental). Baco, Oriental Mindoro is
dominated by a rugged to mountainous terrain.The
low-lying flat and irrigated areas devoted to rice production derive benefits from the
uplands from the alluvial deposits and silt being carried down during heavy rainfall and
flooding months.The town of Baco has almost a similar rainfall pattern to Infanta, Quezon.It has also a very pronounced rainy period from
November to January.It does not have distinct
dry months except during El Niņo or a drought year, which occurred in 1983 and 1997-98.The village where the case study was conducted
(Brgy Mayabig) has 249 households with a total population of 1,278 (based on year 2000
Census of Population).The households have on
average 5 to 13 members.The village has an
area of 433 ha.Of this area, 196 ha are
irrigated rice land and 237 ha are uplands devoted to mixed crops (coconut, bananas,
fruits and upland crops).

Data collection was done through an interview of the key
informants and individual farmers using a prepared and pre-tested questionnaire.This was supplemented by focus group discussions
that involved not only the participation of farmers (men and women) but also their
children (Mendoza 2001).

A total of 23 farmers were interviewed.Of the 23 farmers, 10 were conventional farmers, 7
were LEISA, and 6 were organic farmers.From
the questionnaire, details of farm activities were asked, their duration (man-days or
hours involved), quantity of inputs used (kg of pesticides if they were using them).Farm household data were also requested. This
included: number of years into farming, farm size, other crops planted, membership to
organizations, reasons for the farming method being used and important observations and
lessons learned in farming.

The farmers, representative of the organic and LEISA
systems, were identified earlier, while the conventional farmers (still the majority of
farmers) were selected randomly from the names provided by the municipal agricultural
officer (MAO).

Data clustering and analysis

The analysis of data was focused on 3 domains namely:
productivity, financial soundness and energy analysis of the 3 farm systems (organic,
LEISA and conventional). The productivity analysis was based on the usual yield and other
important yield components.Whenever possible,
the reasons for high yields, which differed across sites and farm systems, were
provided.The agronomic practices, climate or
soil features of the farms were compared. In the financial and energy analysis, suitable
methods for the case study were adopted.

Financial Analysis

All cost items were accorded monetary values (in
peso-Philippine currency and in US Dollars; 1 USD = P50).The cost items were delineated into cash and
non-cash costs (cash + non-cash = total costs).It
was necessary to separate the two cost items because the non-cash costs were paid-in-kind
at harvest time. They did not involve any cash outlay on the part of the farmer, but they
were a substantial costs item when they were deducted from the gross or total yield.Details of cash and
non-cash items are listed in Appendix Table 1.

The different indicators computed in the financial analysis
were as follows: Net revenue (NR), net revenue/cash expense ratio (NCER), Break-even Yield
(BEY) and cost to produce 1 tonne of grain.The
corresponding mechanical formulae used in computing the different financial indicators
were as follows:

It is important to note that NCER was used instead of ROI
(return on investment),where the denominator
is the total cost, because the cash outlay was more important for the farmers in rural Philippines.The non-cash cost
is not treated as costs by the farmers since it does not involve money on their part.

Break-even Yield (BEY)=Total Costs÷Unit Price(3)

=P ha-1÷(P) Price of rice kg-1

=kg ha-1

Cost to produce 1 tonne of rice=Total Costs ÷Grain Yield ha -1(4)

=P ha-1÷tonnes
ha-1

=P tonne-1

Energy Analysis

The use of energy was delineated into fossil fuel based energy
inputs (FFEI) and indirect fossil fuel based inputs (IFFEI). The FFEI includes: fuel and oil used by the tractor,
chemical fertilizers (N, P, K) and pesticides.The
energy values (Mcal) were derived from published literature (Pimentel et al 1983; Cox and Atkins 1979).Labor and seeds comprised the indirect fossil fuel
energy inputs. For labor, the energy values (Mcal) by operation were taken from Kuether
and Duff (1980), as cited by Soriano (1982).

Two measures of energy use were employed: energy efficiency
(Ee) and energy Intensity (Ei).

The Energy efficiency (Ee) is the ratio between the Mcal energy
output per ha (grain yield) and the Mcal energy inputs per ha.It gives an indication of how much energy was
produced per unit energy used.Since the
energy inputs were delineated into 2 categories (FFEI and IFFEI), Ee was computed twice as
follows:

Energy Efficiency (Ee)=Mcal (grain)÷Mcal (FFEI)(5)

Energy Efficiency (Ee)=Mcal (grain)÷Mcal (TEI)(6)

This was done to find out the Ee with the direct fossil
fuel-based energy inputs as in the manufacture of fertilizer or pesticides.Labor and seeds as in the financial analysis are
not really treated as costs by farmers in the Philippines
but there is considerable energy in the use of seeds (1 kg = 4.0 Mcal).Also, energy in labor was also huge (Appendix Table 2).This explains why they were also included in the
audit of total energy inputs (TEI).

The Energy intensity (Ei) shows how much energy (Mcal) was used
to produce 1 tonne of grain.As in Ee, it was
estimated in two ways as follows:

Ei=Mcal (FFEI) ÷ Grain yield (tonne ha-1) = Mcal t-1 of grain(7)

Ei =Mcal (TEI) ÷ Grain yield (tonne ha-1) = Mcal t-1 of grain(8)

While related to Ee, Ei provides quantitative data on how much
energy (FFEI or TEI) was spent in the production of rice (Mcal tonne-1 of
grain).

Results and Discussion

Productivity

The comparative yields of
Organic, LEISA and Conventional farmers are shown in Table 1.

1/Average for 4 cropping
seasons (2 wet season and 2 dry season crops, 1998-2000 for Organic and LEISA and2 cropping seasons (Wet and Dry season
1999-2000) for conventional. 2/Based on reported average yield across season obtained by the farmers
we interviewed (Dec 2001)
*Reported yields are paddy or unmilled rice.

The representative case farms for organic rice production in
Infanta, Quezon obtained the highest yield followed by LEISA and the lowest was the
conventional system.Rice yields obtained at
Baco, Oriental Mindoro were about the same for the 3 types of farming systems.

The average yields for the two sites revealed that yields
obtained in the organic farms were slightly higher (17.2%) when compared to the
conventional farms.Farmers who were into cost
cutting measures (through LEISA) also obtained slightly higher yields when compared to
farmers using the conventional method.

Only in Infanta, Quezon were seasonal yields
monitored.Yield data gathering was done in
two (2) wet seasons (WS) and two dry seasons (DS).During
the wet season, rice yield was highest in he Organic farms, followed by LEISA farms, and
it was lowest in the conventional farm(Table 2).

Table 2.Rice
yield (kg ha-1) obtained in the three (3) farms for wet season (WS) and dry
season (DS), Infanta, Quezon only

Farm

Wet Season

Dry Season

Average*

Conventional

2,445

3,507

2,976

LEISA

3,748

4,024

3,886

Organic

3,918

4,822

4,370

*Average of four (4) cropping seasons for LEISA and Organic, while
2 cropping season for Conventional.

While rice yields were higher during the dry season (DS), the
yield trend was the same for the 3 case farms.Highest
yield was obtained in the organic farm, followed by the LEISA farm and the lowest was in
the conventional farm.Higher yields were
obtained in all farms during the dry season. This could be attributed to the higher
photosynthetic productivity occurring during the sunshine-rich dry season cropping.It was the conventional farm which had the lowest
yield during the wet season as cloudy-rainy weather is not conducive to input utilization.Also, the case study period coincided with frequent
heavy rains.It was observed that more than
50% of rice plants simply lodged in the conventional farms.Heavy N-fertilized crops had heavy top growth.This rendered the rice plants in the conventional farm susceptible to lodging. That
the Organic farm yielded higher during both wet and dry seasons, compared with the
conventional farm, is suggestive of the following important considerations in the life of
small-holder rice farmers in the Philippines:

It should dispel doubts that rice yield would
decline if no chemical fertilizer or pesticides are applied.

It eliminates the risks of losing money due to
weather-induced risks.

While organic residue recycling is more labor intensive than
applying fertilizers, it is more rewarding as yields were higher.

Rice yield in the organic farm was 19.9% higher than in the
LEISA farm and was 37.4% higher than in the conventional farm during the dry season.Not only was the yield in tonnes per ha higher in
the Organic farm, but the grains in the panicle were also heavier. The weight of 1000
grains in the Organic farm was also higher than in the Conventional farm (Table 3).Filled
grains per panicle were highest in the Organic farm while it was lowest in LEISA, the
Conventional farm being intermediate.Percent
unfilled grains were highest in LEISA while it was comparable in Organic and Conventional
farms.

Grain weight is a determinant of grain milling recovery.Upon milling, higher grain recovery was obtained in
the Organic farm.

Why were organic farmers getting higher yields than LEISA or
the Conventional farmers? It was not simply the weather factor or the input application
that affected yields.Farm management and crop
care also affected yields.

It is important to point out that most of the conventional
farmers were tenants, while the organic farmers
owned the farm.In Infanta, Quezon, the
representative farmers for both LEISA and conventional farm were tenants.Of the 10 farmers interviewed representing
conventional farming only 3 owned their farms.The
rest of the farmers were also tenants.Since
the farmers do not own the farm, they were just following the instruction given to them by
their landowners (Mendoza 2001).As
landowners, the organic farmers were more motivated to increase yield.They were adopting better farm management
practices.Close attention and care were being
accorded to the crops (Damo 2002).

In both sites (Infanta, Quezon and Baco, Oriental Mindoro), the
representative organic farmers were raising livestock (ducks in Infanta, Quezon and ducks
and swine in Baco, Oriental Mindoro).Thus,
they produced on-farm the manure or compost requirements of their rice crop.When asked why they were raising livestock, the
farmers answered that it was their way of increasing their income from farming.The income from rice farming alone was not
sufficient to support their families.From the
seminars/training they attended, livestock (due to their manure) was a critical component
of organic farming (source of manure, farm power, immediate cash as in poultry and ducks).

The organic rice farmers were not simply mono-crop rice
farmers. Theywere involved in rice cum livestock
production due to the following reasons: ducks because they help the farmers in
picking golden snails (golden snail is one of the serious pests in lowland rice production
in the Philippines); swine,
because they can use their rice bran in the feed mixture.

The variations in yield obtained in organic farms when compared
with those in the conventional farms were consistent with the intensive reviews done by
Stanhill (1990).Of the 30 yield comparisons
he made, the mean yield of 13 cases of organically grown crops exceeded those of the
conventional cropping systems, were equal in 2, and were less in 15.In our case study, of the seven (7) organic rice
farms studied, all except one (1) were getting higher yields compared with the average
yields obtained in the conventional farms.Stanhill's
(1990) data were based on maize; ours was rice.Stanhill
(1990) noticed that conventionally farmed fields gave higher maize yields than organic
fields during favorable cropping conditions, whereas the opposite was the case during
adverse, low yielding conditions.In our case
study, rice yields were higher in both conditions.Rice
yields in organic farms were 38% higher during sunny and zero typhoon dry season cropping(favorable condition)and about 60% higher during rainy, cloudy and typhoon-laden wet season cropping(less favorable condition)at Infanta, Quezon.

Financial Analysis

In Infanta, Quezon, the lowest gross revenue was obtained
during the wet season in the Conventional farms (USD 357/ha) while the highest gross
revenue was obtained in the Organic farms during the dry season (USD 771). The lower yield in the conventional farms
explains why the revenue was the lowest.Low
yield was attributed mainly to the rainy weather as explained earlier.For easier comparisons of the financial soundness
of the 3 farms, the indicators used in the financial analysis were summarized as follows:Net Revenue (Table 4), Total Cost (Table 5),
Break-even yield (Table 7), Net revenue/cash expense ratio (Table 8) and cost to produce 1
tonne of un-milled rice (Table 9).

Highest net revenue per ha was obtained in organic farms in
both sites (Table 4).The average for the two
sites was 70% higher than in the conventional farms. Between sites, net revenue was more
than doubled in the organic farm at Infanta, Quezon.This
could be attributed to the higher gross revenue due mainly to higher yields obtained in
the organic farm.

*Figures in parenthesis are relative values where the conventional
farm was used as the reference or index value

M

oreover, the total costs of production were
highest in the conventional farm (Table 5)This
was due to the higher cash costs of production which in turn were due to the fertilizer
and pesticides amounting to about 84% of the cash cost of production.

In Baco, Oriental Mindoro, despite the slightly lower yields
obtained in the organic farms (3.25 tonnes ha-1) compared with the conventional
farm (3.35 tonnes ha-1), net revenue was higher by 14.5%.This is because the total cost of production was
much lower in the organic farm than in the conventional farm.The main reason why the total cost was 44% higher
in the conventional farm was because of the chemical inputs applied which were 83% of the
cash costs or 36.0% of the total cost of production.The
agrochemical inputs (fertilizer and pesticides) in the conventional farm as a percent of
both the cash and total cost were computed (Table 6).Chemical fertilizer accounted for about half (52.2%) of the cash input costs.

Table 6.Agrochemical
inputs (fertilizer and pesticides) in Conventional farms as per cent (%) cash input cost
and total costin two sites, Philippines

In terms of net revenue, LEISA was at the middle of the two. The relative net revenue was high (93%) in Infanta,
Quezon while it was minimal (4.8%) in Baco, Oriental Mindoro.This was due to the considerably higher yield
(hence gross revenue) obtained in the LEISA farm and the cost of production was still
slightly lower (5%) in the LEISA farm.In both
sites, the minimal chemical input application brought down considerably the cash cost of
production by 37% (average for 2 sites). Since the total cost of production was mainly due
to the higher cash cost of production, breakeven yield (the yield level that pays for all
the costs) was highest in the conventional farm followed by organic and LEISA farms,
respectively (Table 7).

*Data in parenthesis are relative
breakeven yields where the conventional farm was used as the reference yield

This means that organic farmers were earning more as shown in
the net return over cash expense (NRCE).NRCE
is the ratio between the net return over the cash cost of production (Table 8).NRCE
was used instead of the usual return on investment (ROI) because ROI is the ratio between
Gross Return over Total Cost of Production (Cash + Non-Cash).The non-cash costs of production in rice farming
under Philippine condition are paid in-kind at harvest time.The farmers do not consider these items as costs.What they consider as cash expenses were only those that required money as in
buying inputs and in paying labor for transplanting.Due
to the high cash costs and the lower net revenue in the conventional farm, the NCRE values
were lowest in the conventional farm and highest in the organic farms.This means that rice farmers in the Philippine earn
more money for every peso they spend in organic rice farming than in conventional and
LEISA farming .

*Data in parenthesis are relative values
where cost to produce 1 tonne of un-milled rice in conventional farming was used as the
reference value

With globalization and the ensuing import liberalization,
growing rice through the organic farming method could enable the farmers to compete with
the influx of cheaply imported caloric food sources (bread, wheat) including rice.Organic farming as adopted in rice production
lessens the cash expense considerably. Where to borrow money is a big worry especially
among women as they are the money keepers under Philippine culture.It also minimizes the sleepless nights or
nightmares of farmers especially during the rainy season.Rains in the Philippines are mainly caused by typhoons and 18-20 typhoons
hit the country every year.

Energy Analysis

The detailed energy audit of the various energy requiring
operations and stages of rice production under organic, LEISA and Conventional farm in two
sites (Infanta, Quezon and Baco, Oriental Mindoro) are shown in Appendix Table 3 and 4.Energy Input utilization showed similar trends in
both sites.On the average, organic farms
(Table 10) utilized the lowest amount of energy, which was only 36.6% of the total energy
utilized in the conventional farms. The LEISA
farms were at the middle.On average, they
utilized only 62.2% of the energy utilized in the conventional farms.Many researchers found the same result in earlier
studies (Loake 2001; Refsgaard et al 1998; Pimentel et al 1983).

The indirect fossil fuel based energy inputs (labor, seeds)
were almost the same in both sites and in the 3 farm systems. It was only slightly higher
in the organic farms at Infanta, Quezon.This
was because the case study farmer was hauling the manure and the rice harvest, and the
distance was quite far from the farm to the feeder road.The main factor, therefore, that caused the big difference in the total energy used
in the 3 farms was the fossil fuel based energy inputs ((Table 10).On the average, the organic farms utilized only
24.3% (LEISA 55.3%) of fossil fuel based energy inputs relative to the conventional farm.
Of the total 2,848 Mcal ha-1 energy utilized in the conventional farms, 84%
(2,385 Mcal ha-1) was the share of the fossil fuel based energy inputs.

Table 10.Energy inputs in Organic, LEISA and Conventional
farms in two sites

A detailed accounting on how the fossil fuel based energy
inputs (FFEI) were utilized in relation to the total energy inputs (TEI) is shown in Table
11.Agro-chemical inputs (fertilizer and
pesticides) on the average, accounted for about 82.8% of fossil fuel based energy inputs
(FFEI) in the conventional farms. At Baco, Oriental Mindoro, FFEI was about 88%.Paddy fields at Oriental Mindoro were less fertile
than Infanta, Quezon.Thus, farmers were
applying more fertilizers particularly nitrogen and nitrogen fertilizer utilizes high
amount of energy (14.19 Mcal kg-1) during manufacture (Mudahar and Hignett
1985).Nitrogen fertilizer alone accounted for
about 69.1% for the FFEI or 60.5% of TEI in the conventional farms at Baco, Oriental
Mindoro. In LEISA farms, the share of FFEI to TEI was 74% and only 54.8% on organic farms.Agrochemical inputs were zero (0) in organic farms,
40.5% in LEISA and about 60.6% in the conventional farms.

Table 11.Percentage (%) share of the various energy inputs in Organic, LEISA and
Conventional farms in two sites, Philippines

Because the conventional farms were utilizing a considerably
high amount of fossils fuel based energy inputs, particularly in the form of agrochemical
inputs (fertilizers and pesticides), their energy efficiencywas the lowest among the 3
farms (Table 12).

In this particular energy audit, the seeds and labor were given
energy values.At the farm level, farmers do
not usually pay particular attention to these items.Firstly,
they are mostly using saved seeds from their previous harvests.Second, they are farmers and they are there in the
farm to work.Thus, their labor is not
considered as cost.As in the financial
analysis, these were treated as non-cash costs.In
this energy analysis they were grouped as indirect fossil fuel oil based energy inputs
(IFFOEI).Seed production also utilized fossil
fuel-based energy and labor was also incurred in the various field operations.If these items are not treated as cash-cost, they
could also be treated as non-energy cost.This
would increase considerably the energy efficiency (Ee) of organic farms at Ee=21.5,
and LEISA at Ee = 8.91.Conventional farms hadEe = 4.93.This
makes organic farms 4.4 times more energy efficient while LEISA was 1.8 times more energy
efficient than the conventional farms.

The organic farms were the least energy intensive (Ei).Conventional rice
farming utilized 4.2 times more FFEI when compared with rice grown the organic way.
Comparing the 2 study sites , Ei was higher in Baco, Oriental Mindoro compared with
Infanta, Quezon.The
higher Eiat Baco,Oriental Mindoro was due to
the higher amount of agrochemical inputs used, which
in turn was due to its lower soil fertility.Higher
yields were also obtained by the case study organic rice farmer at Infanta, Quezon .

The influence of season on energy use, energy efficiency and
intensity was also estimated.This was done
only in Infanta, Quezon (Table 13).The use of
energy inputs (TEI, Mcal ha-1) was slightly higher during the dry season than
the during the wet season in all of the 3 farms.But
the difference in energy use between dry and wet season was largest in LEISA, 678 Mcal ha-1,
followed by the conventional farm 246 Mcal ha-1, and lowest in the organic farm
at 33 Mcal ha-1.

The main reason is that the farmers
were using more chemical fertilizers in both LEISA and conventional farms during the dry
season than during the wet season.Lesser
risks due to typhoons, heavy rains and pests, and plenty of sunshine during the dry season
motivate farmers to apply more yield-increasing inputs like chemical fertilizer
particularly nitrogen in the conventional farms.

The higher yields obtained during the more photosynthetically
productive and input efficient dry season cropping led to its higher energy efficiency
(Ee) in the 3 farms when compared with thewet
season cropping.Higher yields (when
expressed in calorific energy yields) during the dry months had sufficiently offset the
higher energy use due to chemical fertilizer in both LEISA and conventional farms.The case study organic farm was still superior when
compared to LEISA and conventional farms.Energy
efficiency in the organic farms was about 3 times higher when compared to the conventional
farm and about 2 times to that of LEISA. Consequently, the energy intensity (Ei) which is
the production of 1 tonne of un-milled rice was less during the dry season compared with
the wet season in the conventional farm.Within
seasons, Ei was 2.5 times higher in the conventional farms vs. organic farms during the
wet season and about 3.0 times higher during the dry season.

Bonys study (1993) revealed that the increasing energy
efficiency of maize production in France was mainly due to the increase in resource use
efficiency, which in turn was due to the advent of bigger and more efficient tractors and
decreased energy use in nitrogen fertilizer manufacture.The use of bigger and more efficient machines could not be adopted in wetland paddy
fields and the small farms in the Philippines.Moreover,
agrochemical input nominal prices are increasing with the increase in oil price and
currency devaluation relative to the US dollar.Thus,
the more practical step to reduce energy use is for the farmers to adopt LEISA as a
transitional practice and to go fully organic when organic fertilizer (compost, animal
manure) could be made on-farm and the land ownership issue settled with the full
implementation of a comprehensive agrarian reform program in the Philippines.

Conclusions

Growing rice by the
organic method was more energy efficient (4 times) compared to conventional and almost 2
times compared to Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA). The agrochemical input (chemical fertilizer
and pesticides), while
it was zero in the organic farms, was
about 61% of the total energy inputs in the conventional farms and reduced to 40.5%
in LEISA. Organic farms were using only 37%
the total energy use on conventional farms, while LEISA was using 62.2%.

Organic farms required
the least amount of energy to produce 1 tonne of paddy rice.Conventional farms used 3 times more energy to produce the same tonne of paddy rice
compared with the organic farms.

Agrochemical inputs
(pesticides and fertilizer) were 83.4% of the cash cost production in the conventional
farm.It was
32% cheaper to produce the same quantity of paddy rice in organic compare to conventional
farming.Because of the lower cash expenditure
in organic farms, the break-even yield (or the yield level to recover costs) was also
lower in the organic farms compared to conventional farms andLEISA farms.

Thus, in all the 3 major
bases of comparisons (productivity, profitability, and energy use), growing rice the
organic way was found to be a superior method.Organic
farmers obtained slightly higher yields on the average.It was found to be the cheapest way to grow rice.It required the least amount of energy (fossil fuel based energy). The organic method is the rice farming system that
holds greatest promise to uplift the economic plight of small-scale and resource-poor rice
farmers. The organic method of rice farming
was shown to minimize cash expenses and the need for huge production loans.

Acknowledgement

Case study 1 (Infanta,
Quezon) was funded by the Philippine Council for Agriculture Resources Research and
Development (PCARRD), while case study 2 (Baco, Oriental Mindoro) was sponsored by Plan
International Philippines.The author would
like to thank Ms. Lucila Pecadizo, University Researcher, Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, UP Los Baņos, Laguna, who was instrumental in
field data collection at Infanta, Quezonand Dr. Don Del Castillo of Plan International
Philippines for facilitating the case study at Baco, Oriental Mindanao, Philippines.